|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Cyclists say the funniest things
On 14/08/17 23:17, JNugent wrote:
On 14/08/2017 20:39, TMS320 wrote: On 14/08/17 13:48, JNugent wrote: On 14/08/2017 11:22, TMS320 wrote: On 13/08/17 03:27, Rob Morley wrote TMS320 wrote: Oh, not that stupid "no indicator" problem again. No indicator, and failure to make proper observation before pulling out - I think that would be a driving test fail. If the one overtaking was the one taking the driving test, it would also be a fail. Proper observation includes noticing the proximity of junctions. If you can't read the junction and the traffic, and blindly assume the best it is *your* problem. The driver blindly assumed that nobody would be approaching from the offside rear. In a situation like this where both parties have contributed to the problem there's a tendency to apportion more blame to the road user who changed direction without warning. Primary blame is about insurance compensation or decisions in a law court. That is only one part of it. Allowing yourself to get caught up in a situation that is easy to predict and easy to avoid is another. Best to avoid the morgue/ hospital bed/ insurance claims/ courts where possible. If all road users took the attitude that it is ok to blunder on because another is not following the rules the roads would be complete mayhem. Be careful about what you wish for. "Allowing yourself to get caught up in a situation that is easy to predict and easy to avoid is [best avoided]." Like a cyclist ploughing through a group of pedestrians on a pedestrian crossing (whether the lights are red or green for him), and whether or not he employs the standard technique of bellowing a few choice obscenities at his hapless victims as he approaches? When you have nothing to contribute, try resising the temptation to reply. You think that pointing out how cyclists behave is "nothing", do you? This thread has nothing to do with your obsession. You still haven't answered my question about a law that demands someone gets off and walks a bicycle at a memorial service. That is because someone else did it whilst I was busy with other things. I missed that. Please repeat. The issue was not a memorial service as such, though that lack of respect undoubtedly aggravated the offence. It was about ignoring road closures (I see that you have again defended that practise) and abusing pedestrian areas in general. BTW: After pointing out that cycling slowly and walking are "no different" from each other, you never did try to justify doing the one that is illegal where the legal option is just as "good". Human law (if there is one for this - please advise) is the one that *needs* to justify itself. |
Ads |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Cyclists say the funniest things
On 15/08/2017 09:49, TMS320 wrote:
On 14/08/17 23:17, JNugent wrote: On 14/08/2017 20:39, TMS320 wrote: On 14/08/17 13:48, JNugent wrote: On 14/08/2017 11:22, TMS320 wrote: On 13/08/17 03:27, Rob Morley wrote TMS320 wrote: Oh, not that stupid "no indicator" problem again. No indicator, and failure to make proper observation before pulling out - I think that would be a driving test fail. If the one overtaking was the one taking the driving test, it would also be a fail. Proper observation includes noticing the proximity of junctions. If you can't read the junction and the traffic, and blindly assume the best it is *your* problem. The driver blindly assumed that nobody would be approaching from the offside rear. In a situation like this where both parties have contributed to the problem there's a tendency to apportion more blame to the road user who changed direction without warning. Primary blame is about insurance compensation or decisions in a law court. That is only one part of it. Allowing yourself to get caught up in a situation that is easy to predict and easy to avoid is another. Best to avoid the morgue/ hospital bed/ insurance claims/ courts where possible. If all road users took the attitude that it is ok to blunder on because another is not following the rules the roads would be complete mayhem. Be careful about what you wish for. "Allowing yourself to get caught up in a situation that is easy to predict and easy to avoid is [best avoided]." Like a cyclist ploughing through a group of pedestrians on a pedestrian crossing (whether the lights are red or green for him), and whether or not he employs the standard technique of bellowing a few choice obscenities at his hapless victims as he approaches? When you have nothing to contribute, try resising the temptation to reply. You think that pointing out how cyclists behave is "nothing", do you? This thread has nothing to do with your obsession. You still haven't answered my question about a law that demands someone gets off and walks a bicycle at a memorial service. That is because someone else did it whilst I was busy with other things. I missed that. Please repeat. I can't do that because I don't still have it here (in Thunderbird, read posts are automatically deleted on leaving the NG). The issue was not a memorial service as such, though that lack of respect undoubtedly aggravated the offence. It was about ignoring road closures (I see that you have again defended that practise) and abusing pedestrian areas in general. BTW: After pointing out that cycling slowly and walking are "no different" from each other, you never did try to justify doing the one that is illegal where the legal option is just as "good". Human law (if there is one for this - please advise) is the one that *needs* to justify itself. Translation: "As I have already said on a number of occasions, the rules don't apply to cyclists". |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Cyclists say the funniest things
On 15/08/17 14:56, JNugent wrote:
On 15/08/2017 09:49, TMS320 wrote: On 14/08/17 23:17, JNugent wrote: That is because someone else did it whilst I was busy with other things. I missed that. Please repeat. I can't do that because I don't still have it here (in Thunderbird, read posts are automatically deleted on leaving the NG). So we have a partial explanation for your amnesia. It is possible to recover by refreshing from the server, and to change your settings to keep messages on your pc for (for instance) 30 days to reduce memory loss in future. You then just hide read messages to reduce screen clutter and unhide to to refer back. Also, so that you can remember what you have written, to keep copies of what you sent in the sent folder. Would you like instruction on this? |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Cyclists say the funniest things
On 15/08/2017 15:22, TMS320 wrote:
On 15/08/17 14:56, JNugent wrote: On 15/08/2017 09:49, TMS320 wrote: On 14/08/17 23:17, JNugent wrote: That is because someone else did it whilst I was busy with other things. I missed that. Please repeat. I can't do that because I don't still have it here (in Thunderbird, read posts are automatically deleted on leaving the NG). So we have a partial explanation for your amnesia. It is possible to recover by refreshing from the server, and to change your settings to keep messages on your pc for (for instance) 30 days to reduce memory loss in future. You then just hide read messages to reduce screen clutter and unhide to to refer back. Also, so that you can remember what you have written, to keep copies of what you sent in the sent folder. Would you like instruction on this? No thanks. I do remember that someone (maybe Mr Cheerful) chipped in with the legislation which allows local authorities and/or the police to close a highway. So you have been told. But of course, as we all know, because you and others have advised us so many times, those rules probably don't apply to cyclists. In fact, it isn't at all clear that any rules apply to cyclists, is it? |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Cyclists say the funniest things
On 15/08/17 15:54, JNugent wrote:
On 15/08/2017 15:22, TMS320 wrote: On 15/08/17 14:56, JNugent wrote: On 15/08/2017 09:49, TMS320 wrote: On 14/08/17 23:17, JNugent wrote: I missed that. Please repeat. I can't do that because I don't still have it here (in Thunderbird, read posts are automatically deleted on leaving the NG). ... Would you like instruction on this? No thanks. So when you forget things, don't complain about being treated like a child and don't expect others to do your work for you. I do remember that someone (maybe Mr Cheerful) chipped in with the legislation which allows local authorities and/or the police to close a highway. So you have been told. Indeed they can close a road. What about this law you mentioned about walking a bike? But of course, as we all know, because you and others have advised us so many times, those rules probably don't apply to cyclists. In fact, it isn't at all clear that any rules apply to cyclists, is it? When a policeman has waved me through a closed road, which of us should be punished for breaking the rules? |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Seven things only Yorkshire cyclists know | Alycidon | UK | 2 | December 22nd 15 06:49 AM |
Annoying things cyclists do | Alycidon | UK | 641 | November 15th 15 04:28 PM |
Cyclists Know How To Fix Things | Bret Cahill | UK | 18 | January 2nd 15 08:01 PM |
The things white cyclists say | Andre Jute[_2_] | Techniques | 2 | May 24th 10 02:47 AM |
Things cyclists say... | Gearóid Ó Laoi/Garry Lee | UK | 2 | April 20th 04 09:22 AM |